T&S Post: False Choices and Fence Holes

I skipped the last post or two at Times And Seasons ’cause I thought I was pushing through to the end of another project I’m working on and wanted to give it all my attention. Turns out, however, that I wasn’t as close to the end as I thought. So I’m back to regular posting (every other week) starting this morning with False Choices and Fence Holes. It’s a response to a By Common Consent post that I saw going around on Facebook and deals with the way liberals and conservatives talk to each other about potential problems the Church is facing. It’s relatively short (as m pieces go) and I’ve gotten some positive feedback on it already, so check it out!

Share this:

Related

Comments

There is certainly historical precedent for the Church being wrong. The most obvious, of course, is the racial priesthood ban. During the time when the ban was in force, it was frequently defended as being a matter of doctrine. Now that it has been rescinded, however, those statements have been implicitly rejected….

This is not obvious in the extreme. It is also demonstrably false when one looks at official statements of the First Presidency and the public statements of the leadership of the Church itself, including its prophets. Not even the historical overview of the topic on lds.org suggests, implicitly or otherwise, that the priesthood restrictions were not doctrinal in nature. It takes a stand on what documentary evidence we have as to its origins, which has not changed one wit with the (nondoctrinal) topical overview.

It takes precisely the same speculative insertion of one’s own personal views into the text of the latter statement that it took to develop the disavowed (which means to deny responsibility for — I assume the word choice was careful and intentional) speculations about premortal fence-sitting (which directly contradicts scripture), etc. All are unhelpful when stated as fact.

I stand by my characterization of the racial priesthood ban as wrong, but if you’d like to press the point I may concede that to call it “obvious” would be an overstatement.

Not even the historical overview of the topic on lds.org suggests, implicitly or otherwise, that the priesthood restrictions were not doctrinal in nature.

I disagree with this. I think that the historical overview (available here) is actually quite clear in its implication that the ban was never doctrinal. It states that Young innovated the policy in contradiction to Smith’s practice of ordaining blacks and also emphatically states that there is no known basis for Young’s policy: “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”

This is, within the context of Mormon deference for the mantle of Prophet, a stunning rebuke and it should be read that way. It very clearly implies that those who, in the past, asserted that this ban was doctrinal were wrong to do so. It was a mistake. There is more:

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy,

Please note that the ban is called “policy” (not “doctrine”) and also that the reason they felt a revelation was needed was merely due to the “long history” and not some doctrinal concern. It is also important to note that the ban ended with a revelation, but it did not start with one. The paragraphs about the history of race in the US (e.g. “The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States.”) strongly imply that the reason for this “long history” was the racist culture in which the Church (along with virtually all Christian denominations) was caught up in.

I really think this shouldn’t be rocket science. The concluding section begins with:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

So, to recap, every single theoretical doctrinal underpinning of the ban is “disavowed” and characterized as “racist.” No basis for the policy is left without repudiation. How much stronger of an implication that this was a mistake could one ask for?

It strikes me that the only reason to maintain that the Church maintains that this is not a mistake is to try and perpetuate some kind of grievance against the Church. Emotionally: that is understandable. This was a racist policy (as the Church as strongly implied, if not outright stated) and anger in response is perfectly understandable. But that doesn’t mean that trying to argue that the policy wasn’t mistaken is actually the rational course to take.

Hope the formatting of this reponse works out, as it is long and there’s no preview available. Also hope it doesn’t ramble, but I’m not going to take the time to streamline it as I don’t have the time.

Nathaniel:

It states that Young innovated the policy in contradiction to Smith’s practice of ordaining blacks

It does not say that Brigham Young innovated the policy. It states that there is no historical documentation of it being doctrine before Young, a huge difference. It’s that very leap that I find just as unuseful as the leaps made in speculations about why the ban was there in the first place.

I think it fair to say that Christ was not racist for limiting his preaching and that of the Twelve to the House of Israel and not to the Gentiles (see Matt 15:22-28 [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/15.22-28?lang=eng#21]). Christ even used terms to describe the Gentiles (“dogs”) that would today bring a harsh accusation of racism (i.e., the kind resulting from animus, which any definition of racism requires in my view). It was clearly a “racial” policy, though I think that prejudices the point–I personally prefer the very doctrinal idea of “lineage” as the more accurate way to describe doctrines relating to inheritence and promises (and God certainly has the right to his own timetables, regardless, for taking the gospel and its blessings to others).

It would have been easy for later Gentile members to assume it was racist, especially for those who thought it was racist (and an historical overview could easily have been written regarding racial animus that was certainly present in the ancient Christian, Jewish church), but that would have been completely false–they had no better direct documentation from the mouth of Christ than the latter-day Church has from the mouth of Joseph Smith: both were claimed to have originated it by those who knew him. The documentary history is simply silent on the matter, as the topic statement points out.

It’s certainly the more politically correct position to take these days, but I suspect there is a bit too much willingness to impugn past motives where they are not in evidence and to suggest one’s own motives are somehow superior. I probably have the advantage of being alive before the ban was lifted, and there wasn’t an ounce of racism in accepting the Church’s position on it. We all knew it would one day be changed and waited anxiously for that day (as confirmed in D&C OD2, when the “promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” were fulfilled–strange it would be to refer to past racist, non-doctrinal prophecy as being fulfilled–the implications are clear, in my view, and this is a statement that is actually binding on the membership of the Church as representing the rule of our faith, in accordance with the procedures by which such doctrine is established). I even speculated on why the Lord might have implemented such a thing (there was no suggestion from the Church whatsoever, or among the members with whom I had contact, that racism was acceptable–it was condemned then and is condemned now; and I simply did not encounter it, even though I lived in Alabama for seven years and though I have no doubt that it existed among some members. It just wasn’t at all prevalent in my experience in the Church.

I think it’s easy for today’s youth to assume the Church was more racist back then, but it was certainly not the case for those members I was familiar with. It’s even a strange complaint to make against Brigham Young when the doctrine itself contained the policy change and all the blessings of the Gospel and celestial glory in the future. (And if you read an exchange he and members of the Twelve had with William McCary, it is clear he harbored no animus towards blacks with regards to the gospel, though I don’t have the source available at present. Prevailing societal attitudes about the intelligence of blacks or the comeliness of their features is not evidence of animus, but of current societal understanding. It’s important to avoid presentism when judging historical figures.)

My mom related a story to me at the time of inviting a black maid she had hired to eat lunch with her at the kitchen table, instead of separately at the end of the hall where our laundry & ironing was done, but who refused. I was completely confused (and saddened) as to why anyone would refuse to eat their lunch with my mom when invited to do so. I understand more of the situation in the South now than when I was in elementary, but the point is that racism has nothing to do with accepting the ban as divine in origin anymore than accepting Christ’s “preaching ban” to Gentiles requires racial animus. I’m more than willing to change my view on that matter, but imputing statements or intentions by reading between the lines of a topic statement on lds.org for things it doesn’t actually say won’t be what changes my mind on the matter (for that matter, the present-day leaders have no more understanding of the motivations of past leaders on the origins of the doctrine/policy than anyone else–they are free to speculate today just as they were historically, but the topic statement on lds.org doesn’t do that–so I don’t understand the impulse to claim an lds.org statement today as less infallible than prophetic statements to the Church in the past). And I respect the process for doctrinal change more than to give a topic statement under no one’s name in particular greater status than it deserves. I’m happy for the First Presidency to clarify itself in official statement under their imprimatur (even one clarifying the topic page at lds.org would be useful, without the official imprimatur); I’ll be glad to accept whatever clarification is given with its appropriate weight for process. The Church has repeated declared in modern times, immediately previous to the lds.org topic, that “we do not know” the reasons for the ban. If they had a sudden revelation on the matter to the contrary, I think they would have made that clear.

I think it appropriate to define terms here. First, there is a difference between doctrine, and policy that flows from the doctrine. I have no problem calling the ban both doctrinal and a policy (the same goes with plural marriage). The doctrine, in the case of plural marriage, is that polygamy is condemned, unless the Lord specifically commands it (Jacob 2:27–30). The policies that flow from that doctrinal statement may change, depending on what the Lord commands. Regardless, it is still the Lord doing the commanding and, for now, I’ll stick with past prophetic and First Presidency statements that the ban was divine in origin. The topic statement at lds.org certainly doesn’t contradict those clear statements.

Identically with priesthood restrictions, the doctrine is stated roughly as “blacks of African lineage cannot currently hold the priesthood, but will someday be given that blessing.” The policies that flow from that doctrinal statement are the ban, or non-ban, as the case may be. David O. McKay called it both policy and doctrine, so I have no compunction in doing the same. He also attributed it clearly to divine will, as it had always been attributed by Church leaders of the time, and was done specifically in a second First Presidency statement to do so:

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel.

The attribution to racism is a purely modern phenomenon (and, again, not one found in anything approaching a doctrinal statement by the Church [see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine%5D). We have very specific procedures in the Church by which something becomes doctrine, and topic statements are not one of them (though I’m fine with it as it stands, as long as it isn’t speculatively read).

… also emphatically states that there is no known basis for Young’s policy: “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”

Non sequitur. You just confused the ban with the speculations about the ban and continue to do so throughout your reasoning. The speculations were never doctrinal in any sense of the word. First Presidency statements of 1949 and 1969 (and D&C OD2) regarding the ban itself are much more concrete about the divine origin & removal of the ban.

The topic statement does not make a claim as to whether the doctrine was implemented by Joseph Smith or not (there is historical documentation that implies he did, but it’s not my point here–my point is that you speculate beyond what the text of even the topical statement allows). It notes the historical documentation that does exist about the ban, including Joseph Smith having ordained a small number of blacks to the priesthood early on in Church history. That is not a statement on whether an undocumented change in doctrine might have taken place later in Joseph’s tenure. As an historical overview, it is absolutely neutral on whether the restriction was implemented by Joseph Smith or not. To turn it into an “innovation” requires reading into the text. You may want it to be interpreted that way, but it is not in the text itself. And a topical treatment on lds.org is certainly not the equivalent of previous First Presidency statements and canonized OD2 regardless as to promises being fulfilled.

every single theoretical doctrinal underpinning of the ban is “disavowed” and characterized as “racist.”

Again, I do not believe you have read carefully. The speculations are disavowed (not as being racist, as you assert). The topic statement then adds that racism, itself, is condemned. The latter statement has always been true, including the period when the ban was in place (at least in modern times). That you extend it as appplying to all speculation by members or leaders of the Church whatsoever is, emphatically, false in my view (and experience), and the statement itself does not do so.

As somewhat of an aside, as it’s not necessary to the points I make above, I assume the word “disavow” was chosen carefully, though I could be wrong.

[Merriam-Webster]
dis·avow
verb \?dis-?-?vau?\

: to say that you are not responsible for (something) : to deny that you know about or are involved in (something)

It’s meaning is one of denying responsibility for or involvement in certain speculations. It is not the same as giving an opinion on what has been disavowed. It aptly describes the Church’s official doctrinal position regarding all speculations beyond the ban itself: The Church is not responsible for them (speaking institutionally). That has always been the case as the Church (as opposed to individuals, including leaders, within the Church) never had an official doctrinal position on the why’s of the ban (and, to anticipate a possible objection, quoting a previous prophet’s speculations to establish that the ban was not something new in 1949 is not to assert the correctness of those speculations either–the First Presidency statement speaks for itself as to how far it is taking that quote to be meaningful, and none of it relates to Brigham Young’s speculations, only to the fact that the ban predated 1949).

It would be absurd, it seems to me, to claim that all speculation was racist, including those of prophets & presidents of the Church who were expressly looking forward to the removal of priesthood restrictions. To assert it had something to do with premortal planning has no racist over- or undertones whatsoever. It is precisely to understand the ban in terms of specifically non-racist doctrines of the LDS church regarding our premortal life: that our past has something to do with our future. It is precisely what would make a ban justified without resorting to any racial animus whatsoever. Regardless, we simply do not know either to origins or the reasons for priesthood restrictions.

It strikes me that the only reason to maintain that the Church has suddently disavowed what it is avowedly responsible for, to wit, the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency statements, and to maintain that it was actually racism is to try and perpetuate some kind of self-aggrandizing personal claim to moral superiority. Emotionally: that is understandable; Reasoning past the actual words of any statement, whether on a Church website, magazine, or in a First Presidency statement to establish doctrine is not.

I don’t have the heart to continue this discussion much longer. I understand your motivations for defending, as you see it, the honor of past leaders from “self-aggrandizing personal claim to moral superiority.” and I respect your intentions. Furthermore, I think that you do have a series of technicalities and slender threads upon which to rest an argument that is defensible. Would a policy of denying the priesthood to a certain necessarily involve racial animus? Did the LDS.org statement explicitly state that Brigham Young innovated the policy, or that it had no doctrinal basis? If those are the questions you want to hang your hat on: God speed.

For my part, however, such contortions strain credulity. The preponderance of the evidence seems to me clear: the Priesthood ban was a mistake. Just like blood atonement. Just like the Adam-God theory. I believe Brigham Young was a prophet of God despite those mistakes. All three of them. And I don’t for one minute think I could have done as well, let alone better. So much fr moral superiority.

I’m never going to convince you, however, and that’s absolutely fine with me. The Church’s statement was worded as carefully as it was precisely, in my view, to protect people like you. Why would I contradict that intention?

I want to hang my hat on what is actually stated, Nathaniel, not on what one seeks to imply as something necessary, but left unsaid. I don’t need protection. I’m would be more than happy to hear a statement claiming previous First Presidency statements were, in fact, racist (and, fortunately, I was actually alive to be able to make judgments as relates to my own experience). Either explanation is fine with me regarding previous Church statements. I simply prefer clarity to speculation when it comes to Church doctrine. The latter has always caused difficulties for both the Church and those outside it, and is something I’d prefer to avoid where possible. It’s really not as complex as you want to make it seem.

If a claim of racism is necessarily required to believe the Lord temporarily withholds gospel blessings from some, I believe Christ’s statements and mission regarding the House of Israel would become equally necessarily racist. I suspect that is not what you intend. I also suspect that either explanation is not fine with you, so I do agree that someone’s beliefs need protecting. It is a far more slender thread to read into a document what is not there, than to take a document at face value for what it actually states and go no further.

I suppose I should clarify, in case it was not obvious, that my statement

It strikes me that the only reason to maintain that the Church has suddently disavowed what it is avowedly responsible for, to wit, the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency statements, and to maintain that it was actually racism is to try and perpetuate some kind of self-aggrandizing personal claim to moral superiority. Emotionally: that is understandable; Reasoning past the actual words of any statement, whether on a Church website, magazine, or in a First Presidency statement to establish doctrine is not.”

was a satirical attempt to reflect back to you in the very wording you used (with the “other” point of view replaced with your own), the condescending tone a statement such as that has when directed at another person. It wasn’t meant to personally insult you, Nathaniel, but to draw your attention to it.

my statement was a satirical attempt to reflect back to you in the very wording you used (with the “other” point of view replaced with your own), the condescending tone a statement such as that has when directed at another person. It wasn’t meant to personally insult you, Nathaniel, but to draw your attention to it.

It should tell you everything you need to know about me as a writer and debater that my response to your attempt to demonstrate my arrogance with more even more arrogance wasn’t to get offended. It was to simply take your argument at face-value and treat it as I would any other argument.

I’m not saying that I never get offended, or anything, but I do seem to have my sensitivity set considerably lower than other folks, which is why I get into trouble for sounding condescending (despite my best efforts) and which is why I don’t always recognize attempts to reflect condescension back at me.

As to the major conversation: I really do respect your position to take the statement in as minimal a way as possible. I do not agree with your parallel between Africans and Samaritans, nor with your definition of racism. But I just don’t think every disagreement is worth a debate. In short: I think you take minimalism too far and ignore some pretty clear implications, but that just doesn’t seem like a fruitful battle for me to pick. I do appreciate the comments, though!

No problem. My “sensitivity meter” is extremely high, since I’ve been on the most virulent anti-Mormon sites/groups around (both consistently and at length in discussion that occurred there) since e-mail and the internet first became available (and before that in high school when I read through the Tanners’ magnum opus on behalf of a friend), so any comments you could make would not be taken personally. I’m very accustomed to strong and differing opinions (even venomous–you might be surprised how low some try to go to get a reaction–or not), so learned long ago not to take things personally even when meant to be taken as such (not that yours were–it’s hard to tell in the sterile environment of words on paper). I will, however, point out condescension if I feel it is blatant enough, whether intended or not (and my one paragraph was obviously meant to “feel” the same way as it came across). If it didn’t work as intended, I wish I had not tried it at all.

And to be clear, I do not see my approach as “minimalist” in the sense that it takes into account the maximum that the text allows one to actually conclude without engaging in speculation by reading tea leaves of undeclared inference. I also take into account all previous and surrounding context, especially as regards how the Church arrives at its official doctrinal positions. Nowhere do I see the Church making the claims you state it makes in the historical treatment of priesthood policy on the Church website. In fact, official Church statements through its PR arm immediately surrounding that historical treatment of facts explicitly contradict those conclusions, though I fully understand the tendency to read into a statement what our own preconceptions might dictate. I’ve tried hard not to do that, but to keep myself to the actual statements in the text (which does, I believe, “minimize” what my personal bias might read into it otherwise).

If anything close to a clear declaration of doctrine (as opposed to historical overview [written by unnamed persons with the help of named contributors as regards Church history]) is made by the united voice of the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve, I will readily change my opinion on the matter. I don’t think you will see it happening (just as I don’t see female ordination to the administrative Melchizedek priesthood happening, though I’m willing to be surprised). Without context outside of inference in a single publication, it’s a leap much too far for me to make. When discussing what is and is not LDS “doctrine” (and especially when trying to attribute personal animus), I think it’s the safest place to stand for anyone seeking to intuit the Church’s official position.